Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Snowspinner

False accusations

John accuses virtually any edit that he doesn't like of being vandalism. For instance, a good faith removal of an "infobox" is vandalism: [2]. So are legitimate and good faith edits made to pages he wants to work on [3] [4], [5]

Also, the gathering of evidence against him: [6].

He also accuses me of vandalism at [7] and [8]. He accuses me of violating WP:POINT at [9] and many, many other places.

Misuse of pages and policies

Misuse of ViP: [10].

Insistence of bizzare and non-existant policies like the idea that once a page is a redirect it must always be a redirect: [11].

Declaration that his Wikipedia edits exist to drive traffic to his site: [12] [13]

Removal of categories

[14] [15] [16] and [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] all revert the replacement of infoboxes with categories containing the exact same information as "vandalism." Notably, they de-categorize the articles in question. Particularly notable is [26], which combines removal of categories with personal attacks.

Edit Warring

Obviously, the infobox reverting was an edit war, but it should be noted that he has made clear his intention of a perpetual edit war: [27]

He threatens to recreate articles if they are deleted at [28] [29] and [30].

At [31] he actually does recreate a deleted article. Minutes later an IP recreates the other deleted article at [32] after MNH moves the miscellaneous topics article to this address.

Personal attacks and other hostilities

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

[49] [50] both have the added issue of being comments in my evidence space.

Also [51], which, when someone removed and I reinstated saying that I didn't want John to dig himself deeper by reinstating the personal attack himself, he took upon himself to expand to [52].

Finally, note [53], where he accuses my perception of reality of being unsuitable. I note this only because, ironically, John is citing it below as an effort at reconcilliation.

Spamming talk pages

[54] [55] [56] and [57] [58]

POV Pushing

John Gohde has been changing links from Wellness (A redirect to Health to his own Wellness (alternative medicine). Some of these changes are reasonable. Others, however, serve to misrepresent. For example, [59], where he asserts that because nursing schools teach CAM, CAM is therefore a more appropriate link than a legitimate health article. In a similarly odd move, he moved Category:Health and wellness books into the alternative medicine category, insisting that because most CAM is self-help, health and wellness books are alternative medicine: [60]

Assumptions of bad faith

On several occasions users gave him advice as to what he might do to avoid conflict. [61] was responded to with [62] and then [63]. [64] was met with [65]. And [66] was met with [67]. [68] was met with [69]. More bluntly, but still in the realm of responding badly to having policy explained is [70]. Curiously, John considers these good faith efforts to remind him of policy "harassment" and "condescension," whereas questioning my perception of reality and making personal attacks is "dispute resolution."

[71] demonstrates the depth of his bad faith towards the project at large.

Other Disruption

Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point: [72] [73]. This was followed by the posting of [74] and [75], seeming to indicate the intention he has of adhering to that policy. [76] is also telling.

Distortion of a talk page through refactoring - adding a section in to break up a conversation [77] and adding his signature to one of my comments [78]

Removal of comments: [79]

Positive Contributions

[80] shows a list of the contributions of John Gohde that have actually added new content to articles as opposed to revert warring his infobox, making personal attacks, or disrupting Wikipedia. They consist of additions to one article. Snowspinner 03:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by John Gohde

Response to Evidence submitted by MykReeve

Regarding the Alternative medicine article and its respective talk page, that is called successfully deflecting an edit war. It was my understanding, that editors are supposed to avoid both edit wars and meaningless chit chat on article talk pages. Axl clearly stated that alternative medicine "is well-balanced"[81]. So, have others.[82] And, Geni states alternative medicine attracts edit wars.[83] Further, Jon the Geek, Yonghokim, and Leifern collectively made 5 edits to alternative medicine after my last edit to date[84]

Regarding Jon the Geek, the diff added supports my former point about crapping on articles rather than actively destroying the work of other people. It was my understanding that using diffs to support one's assertions was a desireable practice, according to the above instructions.

To wit: Jon the Geek's "must be proven effective through rigorous scientific investigation" constitutes crap per Dr Gonzo's comments[85] "experts in particular fields don't have the time to waste on constantly revising their articles every time some crackpot takes a crap on them" and "any idiot can and does contribute to articles in subjects they know nothing about". Here again, knowing why Jon the Geek's edit is factually totally laughable requires only a tiny amount of expertise or familiarity with the subject matter. In academia, providing such crap on a test results in an earned goose egg(ie, zero).

I expect that I will eventually add a diff from one of Snowspinner's edits to support my latter point. The problem is that I have so many edits of Snowspinner to choose from and so little time. And, of course, the reference to crapping refers to another section on my user page referencing a well known article written by User:Larry Sanger. I figure if Wikipedia can have a cunt article and other adult topics, surely editors can handle the concept of crapping.

Regarding MykReeve's conclusion, MykReeve seems to be confused about the value of time versus expertise, or how to edit articles for that matter. When someone implies that I am exercising bad faith, I have a duty to tell the AC just exactly who is exercising bad faith. Thus, MykReeve is the only editor exercising bad faith here. -- John Gohde 16:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the above diff that was in question above to a more approprate diff.

MykReeve's is now crying about how the author of a scientific research study did not explicitly say generally. The original version paraphrased just one research study. Do you guys really want to me cite 15 more research studies to support a minor point that should never have been contested in the first place? We are writing articles, not original research, or trying to start a revolution. Endless, nit picking over minor details for an article which is not original research is called intentionally creating an edit war by an editor who spends 8+ hours a day on Wikipedia, 7 days a week. Some of us, actually would like to have a private life. -- John Gohde 12:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally vs. Always: MykReeve's addition of new evidence, when this request was clearly in the voting stage, the deletion of an entire sentence because of one word, and MykReeve's change to my revision which was forced to be significantly bigger is a clear violation of WP:POINT. They are disrupting the smooth operation of Wikipedia on an extremely minor point in a minor article over one word. -- John Gohde 14:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the article regarding "the placebo effect" is not important, then it should be dropped. If it is important enough to keep, then it should be accurate. In context, that one word is very important for the accuracy of the information provided. --Edwardian 10:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes

Snowspinner's domination over the editing of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes has resulted in this redundant guideline. It basically duplicates the respective guidelines on categories, lists, and ASBs. While this guideline presumably exists to integrate these 3 topics, no such integration has taken place due to the editing tactics of Snowspinner. As such this guideline is clearly redundant and should be deleted. -- John Gohde 20:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Here, Snowspinner refers to any change in his guideline as instruction creep[86]. Please, bear in mind that Snowspinner was objecting to the mere discussion of proposed changes in talk.

As far as being blocked on Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, I wouldn't know about that. You see, I have a personal life. So, I was not on Wikipedia to find out that I was blocked. I had better things to do with my life. -- John Gohde 23:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal perception of reality allegations

Snowspinner has a megalomaniacal worldview, where he takes everything personally, considers himself to be omnipotent, and tends to overreact to minor problems.

To document Snowspinner's megalomaniacal tendencies, I am responding to his evidence (00:42, 27 Mar 2005 version) with the following point by point comments.

Megalomaniacal charges of False accusations

John accuses virtually any edit that he doesn't like of being vandalism. For instance, a good faith removal of an "infobox" is vandalism: [87]. So are legitimate and good faith edits made to pages he wants to work on [88] [89], [90]

Obviously, this charge was written by a megalomaniac (that word happens to have a precise definition). The only person that I claimed was vandalizing some selected edits of mine, as far as I can recall, is Snowspinner. And, support for my reverts of Snowspinners reverts of my attempts to update the pre-existing project's infoboxes, are provided in my evidence offered below. -- John Gohde 04:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, the gathering of evidence against him: [91].

See my stalking allegations evidence offered below. The gathering of evidence before the fact on a consistent basis for over one month is called stalking, unless you are a megalomaniac. -- John Gohde 05:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He also accuses me of vandalism at [92] and [93]. He accuses me of violating WP:POINT at [94] and many, many other places.

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to dicusss with Snowspinner why he was constantly reverting my edits to update pre-existing infoboxes. This happens to be a required part of the dispute resolution process, as far as I can figure out. See evidence offered below. -- John Gohde 05:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Misuse of pages and policies

Misuse of ViP: [95].

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to gather communtiy support against Snowspinner Deliberately Destroying An Article. Through a series of complex moves Snowspinner managed to separate an list/article's What links here from the body of the text. -- John Gohde 05:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Insistence of bizzare and non-existant policies like the idea that once a page is a redirect it must always be a redirect: [96].

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to undo what I referred to above. I never saw this type of tactic before, so my reaction to it was somewhat arkward, but still totally reasonable. -- John Gohde 05:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Declaration that his Wikipedia edits exist to drive traffic to his site: [97] [98]

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of me simply bragging about my limited folk edition of Wikipedia. I call it a Dictionary of Alternative Medicine. Gee, I bet at least 40,000 editors mention what they do in other areas other than Wikipedia. As explained in my harassment section offered below, I only added the I am laughing at Snowspinner section in direct response to being subjected to constant harassment from Snowspinner. -- John Gohde 05:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Removal of categories

[99] [100] [101] and [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] all revert the replacement of infoboxes with categories containing the exact same information as "vandalism." Notably, they de-categorize the articles in question. Particularly notable is [111], which combines removal of categories with personal attacks.

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to revert Snowspinner's reverts. Any, de-categorizing of the articles in question were temporary in nature due to Snowspinner having done several different things in the same edit. Only a megalomaniac would make this claim of Snowspinner since in later edits, I went to the trouble of re-adding the infobox on top of his category additions. In other words, nothing was de-categorized. -- John Gohde 06:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Edit Warring

Obviously, the infobox reverting was an edit war, but it should be noted that he has made clear his intention of a perpetual edit war: [112]

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to update the pre-existing project infoboxes. -- John Gohde 06:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He threatens to recreate articles if they are deleted at [113] [114] and [115].

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempts at dispute resolution. First of all, a template is clearly not an article. Second, there is no policy, guideline, or style guide reason whatsoever why I might not create List of wellness topics today, which would be in part from this old deleted list. Of course, this new list would be a lot bigger, and cover many other topics since the subject of this list is now wellness rather than alternative medicine. Finally, that old index was in fact deleted for bogus reasons. See discussion below at [116] for an explanation. -- John Gohde 06:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At [117] he actually does recreate a deleted article. Minutes later an IP recreates the other deleted article at [118] after MNH moves the miscellaneous topics article to this address.

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of the penalty of a block taking on vastly more importance than a block. No block was ever imposed. -- John Gohde 06:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Personal attacks and other hostilities

[119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132].

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to revert Snowspinner's reverts in my simple attempt update the pre-existing project infoboxes. -- John Gohde 06:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also [133], which, when someone removed and I reinstated saying that I didn't want John to dig himself deeper by reinstating the personal attack himself, he took upon himself to expand to [134].

To paraphrase the megalomaniacal Snowspinner, sometimes it is easier just to shoot from the hip like Snowspinner does all the time, than to go through the dispute resolution process. -- John Gohde 06:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally, note [135], where he accuses my perception of reality of being unsuitable. I note this only because, ironically, John is citing it below as an effort at reconcilliation.

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempts at dispute resolution. And, yes I certainly do question Snowspinner's perception of reality. -- John Gohde 06:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Spamming talk pages

[136] [137] [138] and [139] [140]

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempt to gather communtiy support against Snowspinner Deliberately Destroying An Article. Through a series of complex moves Snowspinner managed to separate an list/article's What links here from the body of the text. -- John Gohde 05:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of POV Pushing

John Gohde has been changing links from Wellness (A redirect to Health to his own Wellness (alternative medicine). Some of these changes are reasonable. Others, however, serve to misrepresent. For example, [141], where he asserts that because nursing schools teach CAM, CAM is therefore a more appropriate link than a legitimate health article. In a similarly odd move, he moved Category:Health and wellness books into the alternative medicine category, insisting that because most CAM is self-help, health and wellness books are alternative medicine: [142]

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempts to edit articles. It is called the normal editing process which is done by some 40,000 different editors. Now, Snowspinner seems to be mad that I did not accuse him of vandalism, in these particular edit summaries? In regards to the wellness article, I simply followed what Snowspinner dictated.[143] -- John Gohde 06:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Assumptions of bad faith

On several occasions users gave him advice as to what he might do to avoid conflict. [144] was responded to with [145] and then [146]. [147] was met with [148]. And [149] was met with [150]. [151] was met with [152]. More bluntly, but still in the realm of responding badly to having policy explained is [153].

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempts to keep my talk pages cleaned of old, read mail, that has nothing to do with what I want on my talk page. -- John Gohde 07:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Megalomaniacal charges of Other Disruption

Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point: [154] [155]. This was followed by the posting of [156] and [157], seeming to indicate the intention he has of adhering to that policy. [158] is also telling.

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of my simple attempts at dispute resolution. Plus, if the template and this list were not appropriate for the project on alternative medicine then it clearly seems reasonable to me that they are neither appropriate for the project on Buddhism. Thus, it was my duty to move to have them deleted for precisely the same reasons that they were previously deleted. This is precisely the reason why the deletions of the respective project on alternative medicine template and list were done for bogus reasons, IMHO. -- John Gohde 07:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distortion of a talk page through refactoring - adding a section in to break up a conversation [159] and adding his signature to one of my comments [160]

Another megalomaniacal interpretation of the simple addition of a section heading having a global disruptive impact on Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 07:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal of comments: [161]

I agree with the very next edit [162]. Those comments seem to have gotten lost. They are not any different from any of the other comments, that did not get lost as far as I am concerned. I had no reason to intentionally delete them, and I did not. -- John Gohde 07:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statements by other users

There currently have been made comments by others users agaisnt Snowspinner elsewhere in Wikipedia which have some bearing on the present request for arbitration.

1. Statement made by Everyking
   • "Snowspinner seems to think his admin powers entitle him to do a great deal more than what most other admins, including myself, do. He seems also to have a belief in following his own common sense rather than policy, or at least where policy is ambiguous he simply takes it upon himself to act rather than deliberating and discussing matters—he believes rather strongly in the wisdom of his own "common sense" and warns those who disagree with him: "don't be a dick". I do not mean it as a personal attack, but rather simply an observation, when I say that he has something of an authoritarian mindset which I, just as a Wikipedian, find incompatible with some of our ideals here. I think it would be very helpful if the ArbCom would formally caution him against this sort of thing, because it has been provoking a lot of controversies, and an admin revote would probably not be a bad idea." Everyking 04:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)[163]
     • These comments have some bearing in my infoxbox complaint section where Snowspinner abused his use of admin reverts against me.
2. Statements made by Netoholic
   • "Civility - Snowspinner's attitude is dismissive, condescending, and terse to the point of rudeness. This is especially true towards non-admins. Disagreements happen, but mis-labelling people as vandals or trolls is unproductive. Admins should be held to higher standards than non-admins.")[164]
   • "Value - When one person generates so much more "heat than light", that is, generates a lot activity and focuses energy away from the tasks at hand, action is needed. Snowspinner is not a major contributor to the encyclopedia portion of the project, and he distracts or runs off quite a few valuable ones. The net result is that the project is suffering overall."[165]
   • -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)[166]
     • These comments have bearing in my Harassment complaint section.
   • "RickK, for anyone that has ever really been stalked, or even cyberstalked, your accusation is probably seen as insulting. I'd like to illustrate the double-standard being put forth here. If you take a look at what Snowspinner has been doing regarding User:John Gohde, you may get a hint of what true Wiki-stalking is. That poor guy, who may be misguided, is trying to edit in his area of speciality. Snowspinner is systematically using reversion, deletion, and good old fashion editing to remove tones of that guys work. The only way Snowspinner is doing that is by pulling that user's contribs and going over every single one, reverting most of them and removing anything that guy does. I would suspect if you count up, Snowspinner is a much bigger stalker than TRT, and more blatant. So please stop using the term "stalked", since it is nothing of the sort." -- Netoholic @ 00:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC) [167]
     • Here, this user comments on how he has noticed Snowspinner stalking me.
   • "When I look at that record, that is not what I see. Sure, he did some work on the steak articles, but before that we have long strings of rollbacking of User:John Gohde, removing stub tags and deleted templates, and some RC patrol. In fact, if you look at his 500 articles, you have to go all the way back to Sep 14th (at present). ... Granted, it's probably unfair to judge value to the project using raw comparisons like this, but I find that he generates more heat than light, and doesn't have call to judge the merits of other ed-i-tors. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)" -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) [168]
     • Here, this user comments on how he has noticed Snowspinner repeatedly reverting my edits.

User:John Gohde is an editor in good standing

1. "John Gohde has made no secret of the fact that he is MNH. He had a ban from the arbcom. The ban ended, and he came back. So he is now a user in good standing." Snowspinner 14:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC[169]
   • So, if I am a user in good standing why has Snowspinner been stalking my edits? See stalking section below.
2. "Compared to the behaviour of such recent arbitration subjects as Herschelkrustofsky or Robert the Bruce, John Gohde is just fine. He works very hard indeed at writing material he's a subject matter expert on to fill in Wikipedia's coverage nicely. ... In my non-arbitrating and strictly as any old Wikipedian opinion" - David Gerard 23:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)[170]

Previous attempts at reconciliation had been made

1. Snowspinners Talk Page, for a series of comments under the topic: WP:POINT [171]
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner[172]
   • See my comments under Opposing Outside view [173]
   • See series of comments under 1.2 Powers misused - Rollback (anti-vandalism tool) [174]
   • And, see applicable policy at Wikipedia:Revert Explain reverts "Always explain your reverts " [175]
3. Complaint filed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[176]

Stalking Allegations

Snowspinner has been stalking my edits since 16:14, 12 Feb 2005[177] and was gracious enough to have meticulously recorded his stalkings[178] in a long series of comments. What is important here is that Snowspinner has recorded in detail his stalking of my edits. Snowspinners egomaniacal view of the world is erroneous and has no basis in reality.

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/ Are WikiProject Obsolete? [179]
   • "A certain Wikipedian has been following me around telling me constantly that WikiProjects are obsolete due to the implementation of categories. ..." -- John Gohde 15:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) [180]
   • "This is an interesting interpretation of what I've been doing. ..." Snowspinner 15:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)[181]
2. There is a lot of overlap amongst these charges as one behavior of Snowspinner can be classified under several different charges. Snowspinner engaged in stalking of my edits to update the project's infoboxes. What makes it stalking rather than a mere disagreement was that Snowspinner was not following any list of the branches of alternative medicine. Instead, Snowspinner was following my edits either through the use of a watchlist or by checking my user contributions. Hence, support will come from comparing user contributions for the same time period. I, also made one update just to prove my point on Orthomolecular medicine. And, sure enough Snowspinner reversed it. On a number of occasions, Snowspinner stopped inexplicably reverting my updated infobox in specific articles. And, in other cases, Snowspinner added some categories but forgot completely to delete the project's infobox. Ergo, Snowspinner was more interested in stalking my current edits then he was in removing the infoboxes.
3. "RickK, for anyone that has ever really been stalked, or even cyberstalked, your accusation is probably seen as insulting. I'd like to illustrate the double-standard being put forth here. If you take a look at what Snowspinner has been doing regarding User:John Gohde, you may get a hint of what true Wiki-stalking is. That poor guy, who may be misguided, is trying to edit in his area of speciality. Snowspinner is systematically using reversion, deletion, and good old fashion editing to remove tones of that guys work. The only way Snowspinner is doing that is by pulling that user's contribs and going over every single one, reverting most of them and removing anything that guy does. I would suspect if you count up, Snowspinner is a much bigger stalker than TRT, and more blatant. So please stop using the term "stalked", since it is nothing of the sort." -- Netoholic @ 00:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC) [182]
   • Here, this user comments on how he has noticed Snowspinner stalking me.
   • "Yeah! Except for, you know, the part where I haven't reverted him in two days, haven't listed anything for deletion, and in fact haven't really crossed paths with him since making the suggestion that he split Health and Wellness (alternative medicine) into two distinct articles... and where even before that I didn't revert all of his contributions, so much as fix problems he left... oh, and the part where he's not so much a "poor guy" as "someone who's been banned twice and who prudence suggests glancing at the contributions of every once in a while might not be a bad idea." But other than those bits where you're totally wrong, yes, you've described the situation perfectly." Snowspinner 00:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) [183]
     • Seems to me, that Snowspinner has just admitted to stalking me. I fail to see why a stalker must stalk virtually all of my edits. Snowspinner stalked my edits to update the project's infoboxes. That was enough to harass me, because updating the infoboxes is the only thing that I really wanted to do in Wikipedia. The other edits were mostly a matter of killing time, waiting for the stalking and harassment by Snowspinner to stop. -- John Gohde 18:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Harassment allegations

1. The only reason I am going through the arbitration process, in the first place, is that Snowspinner is making my stay here totally unbearable with all his disrupting, harassing behavior.
2. Civility - Snowspinner's attitude is dismissive, condescending, and terse to the point of making intimidating threats on my talk page, and what is otherwise known as plain old harassing behavior. I am of the opinion that all Admins should be held to higher standards than non-admins.
3. Constant interruptions from Snowspinner focused my energy away from my primary tasks at hand. The only thing that I wanted to do on Wikipedia was to update the old pre-existing project on alternative medicine infoboxes with a newer version. I could have done this simple task in a week or two. And, I would have left Wikipedia long by now. In addition, I was trying to also record my editing activities on my talk page. [184] But, Snowspinner disrupted my work so much, that I finally gave up on trying to document my activities. I really did not start expanding my user page, until Snowspinner started constantly to harass me. My user page has in large part been a direct response to harassment from Snowspinner.
4. A major reason for this arbitration request on harassment is based on following statements made by Snowspinner.
   • Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner: "A reasonable person would be bothered by being stalked. That he was actively disturbing and upsetting another user is sufficient to conclude disruption has taken place. (Snowspinner) 17:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)" [185]
   • "Having discussed this with him previously, I didn't see much need. And let's be clear - this is not an issue of him voting opposite RickK. It is an issue of him systematically editing every article RickK does, down the line. That is stalking and harassment." Snowspinner 02:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) [186]
   • "When a user shows up ..., begins systematically following another editor around the Wikipedia, ..., there are a limited number of conclusions that one can draw. Chief among them are that the user in question is a problem user who's actively harassing RickK." [187]
   • "I am disappointed by your lack of imagination. I think "Don't harass other users" covers it very well." Snowspinner 02:19, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) [188]
     • Snowspinner is clearly aware of what he was doing.
     • I do not see where having to stalk virtually every edit is a requirement of stalking. Snowspinner stalked most, if not all of my edits to update infoboxes and my votes to delete. That was enough to harass me.

Threatening messages allegations

Threatening messages left on my talk page by Snowspinner:

1. Mar 22, 2005 The infobox [189]
   • '"I just wanted you to know, since I know you don't want to accidentally reinsert content that was deleted validly, since that would be vandalism."[190]
2. Feb 28, 2005 WP:POINT "[191]
   • "Just so you know, WP:POINT has been cited in arbcom cases as a principle in the past. So it is enforced, and it's potentially unwise to disregard it." [192]
3. Feb 17, 2005 Spamming talk pages [193]
   • "You should probably be aware of the ruling in the arbcom case against IZAK about a month ago. Specifically, this part: [194]. Spamming multiple talk pages with requests for votes is generally frowned upon, and has been found actionable. Just thought I should warn you." [195]

Infobox/vandalism allegations

Systematically attacking and/or destroying the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine infoboxes with repeated use of the admin-only "rollback" (anti-vandalism) function in furtherence of edit disputes, for reasons that have no basis in reality. The project's infoboxes are certainly not against any Wikipedian policy, guideline, or style guide.

Abuse of sysop privileges allegations

Repeated use of the admin-only "rollback" (anti-vandalism) function in furtherance of edit disputes.

1. The project's infoboxes are certainly not against any Wikipedian policy, guideline, or style guide. See Why the Project on Alternative Medicine's InfoBoxes are NOT Obsolete for my explanation.
   1. The project's infoboxes have been documented to be useful. In the blink of an eye, over this vandalism affair with the template both User:Art Carlson [196] and User:Pwqn [197], [198] commented on their usefulness. Considering the brief period of time and the rarity of people visiting the TvD pages this was a remarkable show of support for the usefulness of the project's infoboxes.
   2. The present design of the project's infobox is based on public discussion.
      1. Wikipedia talk:Infobox Are WikiProject Infoboxes Obsolete? "Infoboxes share absolutely nothing in common with categories. Absolutely nothing! See [199]" -- John Gohde 06:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
         • "Exactly correct. Which is why I say your boxes aren't infoboxes. Snowspinner 13:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)"[200]
      2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/ Are WikiProject Obsolete? "A certain Wikipedian has been following me around telling me constantly that WikiProjects are obsolete due to the implementation of categories. ..." -- John Gohde 15:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)[201]
2. Snowspinner has attacked the project's infoboxes in too many edits to list.
   • Snowspinner has repeatedly violated WP:POINT with his repeated reversals of my edits to update the project's infoboxes. His violations are especially obvious in regards to natural health [202] because he stated: "I object because it is not an infobox, but rather an attempt to make your categories shinier and more special than everybody else's." Snowspinner 13:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)[203]
   • To see the current design check out Wikipedia:Infobox Other:Alternative Medicine [204]
   • Snowspinner's stated reason for attacking the project's infoboxes is absurd.
3. Snowspinner actively disturbed and made me upset by repeatedly reversing the following edits of mine: Natural health, Osteopathy, Metamorphic Technique, Orthomolecular medicine, Body work (alternative medicine), Rolfing and Magnet therapy. I am an editor in good standing and did not vandalize these articles. The only thing that I am trying to do is to update the old objectionable pre-existing project infoboxes with a new version of a single purpose infobox design. Yet, the respective histories of these articles show several cycles of Snowspinner abusing his sysop powers.
   • The more recent attempts by me to update the Wikipproject on Alternative Medicine pre-existing infoboxes with a newer version of poor infobox design have each gone through several reverts. As Snowspinner's main cronie, [[User:David Gerard] has made a number of these inappropriate admin reverts.
   • Natural health
     • history overview of edit reverts [205]
     • The infobox was pre-existing, See edit immediately prior to my first edit [206]. This clearly documents that Snowspinner had several months to delete these infoboxes, but chose not to.
     • My first edit, 01:39, 4 Feb 2005 , [207]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 21 Feb 2005, [208]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 21 Feb 2005, [209]
   • Osteopathy
     • history overview of edit reverts [210]
     • The infobox was pre-existing, See edit immediately prior to my first edit [211]. This clearly documents that Snowspinner had several months to delete these infoboxes, but chose not to.
     • My first edit, 4 Feb 2005 , [212]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 24 Feb 2005, [213]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 4 Mar 2005, [214]
   • Orthomolecular medicine
     • history overview of edit reverts [215]
     • The infobox was pre-existing, See edit immediately prior to my first edit [216]. This clearly documents that Snowspinner had several months to delete these infoboxes, but chose not to.
     • My first edit, 4 Feb 2005 , [217]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 26 Feb 2005, [218]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 28 Feb 2005, [219]
   • Body work (alternative medicine)
     • history overview of edit reverts [220]
     • The infobox was pre-existing, See edit immediately prior to my first edit [221]. This clearly documents that Snowspinner had several months to delete these infoboxes, but chose not to.
     • My first edit, 4 Feb 2005 , [222]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 12 Feb 2005, [223]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 13 Feb 2005, [224]
   • Rolfing
     • history overview of edit reverts [225]
     • The infobox was pre-existing, See edit immediately prior to my first edit [226]. This clearly documents that Snowspinner had several months to delete these infoboxes, but chose not to.
     • My first edit, 8 Feb 2005 , [227]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 24 Feb 2005, [228]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 26 Feb 2005, [229]
   • Magnet therapy
     • history overview of edit reverts [230]
     • My addition of the infobox, 24 Feb 2005 , [231]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 24 Feb 2005, [232]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 26 Feb 2005, [233]
   • Metamorphic Technique
     • history overview of edit reverts [234]
     • My addition of the infobox, 23 Feb 2005 , [235]
     • Snowspinner's first revert, 24 Feb 2005, [236]
     • Snowspinner's first abuse of Admin Reverts, 26 Feb 2005, [237]

Vandalism allegations

1. It is hard to conceive the mind of Snowspinner in this debauchery. But, apparently Snowspinner was behind the creation of a bogus template called Template:CAMInfobox and then held a TvD vote on it [238] as a fraudlent pretext used to justify deleting all of the projects infoboxes. I am the founder of this project. I wrote most of Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Infoboxes (history [239]). And, Template:CAMInfobox was never created or used by this WikiProject.
   • User:John Gohde's talk page [240]
   • User:Snowspinner user contributions where he deleted infoboxes[241]
2. Snowspinners actions rises to the level of vandalism with his activities revolving around the Template:CAMInfobox template.
   1. According to Snowspinner: "The template was created by User:SuperAppleFreak, ... It was put into use on Osteopathy, and was an automated way of creating the infobox on the articles. When I noticed it, it was listed on TfD for a week and deleted. Snowspinner 05:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)" [242]
   2. I see only 3 user contrubitions by SuperAppleFreak.[243] SuperAppleFreak put the template into Osteopathy, but I see nothing where he created the template. Who created template? Who is SuperAppleFreak: Snowspinner? The fact are that a sock called SuperAppleFreak was created. The first edit was to leave a comment on my talk page. First edits on socks generally are made to throw admins off their trail. This sock clearly created this bogus template which used parameters. That is definitely not something that would be done on a whim. It requires a great deal of detail knowledge. The sock posted the template to Osteopathy. The real objective behind the creation of the sock. And, the sock did nothing else which thus makes this account to be highly suspicious with either Snowspinner or one of his cronies likely to be directly behind it.
   3. If Snowspinners statement is true then Template:CAMInfobox was a renegade template with absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. In short the placement of Template:CAMInfobox in any article would have been vandalism. Obviously, each infobox has to be custom made because they classify each unique branch of alternative medicine several different ways, even if a template uses parameters. User:SuperAppleFreak's placement of Template:CAMInfobox into Osteopathy was erroneous. Therefore, Snowspinner's systematic deletion of the projects infoboxes on 21 March 2005 based upon the TvD vote to delete Template:CAMInfobox is prima facie evidence of vandalism since there was no justification for Snowspinner's actions whatsoever. The project's infoboxes are certainly not against any Wikipedian policy, guideline, or style guide.
   4. To summarize Snowspinners known involvement in Template:CAMInfobox. Snowspinner moved to delete Template:CAMInfobox by requesting a TvD.[244] The first entry on this vote stated: "This nomination is in bad faith." Snowspinner was the very admin who deleted Template:CAMInfobox deleted the votes from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion [245]. He then immediately started deleting all of the project's infoboxes. That makes Snowspinners involvement in the whole affair highly suspicious. He was, thus, likely to have created this template.

Comments by others

Plus, my replies to them.

• SuperAppleFreak is clearly a sock, but to conclude that he is therefor Snowspinner is specualtive to say the least. Certainly SAF was not created in order to add a bogus template to osteopathy, the account was created on the 9th march and the template created on the 13th. It seems more likely that the sock was created in order to leave the masseage on your talk page. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 11:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonsense! The SAF was created to create the template and to post it to osteopathy. The fact that the first edit from this sock was to my talk page is odd, but not when you consider it as a move to throw off Admins. But, Snowspinner's vandalism motives are now very clear. -- John Gohde 11:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am in absolute awe of the paranoia and leaps of logic necessary to get to that conclusion. Though I must say, you seem well versed in the use of sockpuppets, John, to make such generalizations about what the first edit of a sockpuppet usually is. Snowspinner 15:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Being that you asked, I never had seen that Template:CAMInfobox once. Personally, I do not even know how to write a template that uses parameters. It would take a great deal of experimentation for me to get one to work. It took me several days just to get the HTML coding to work for these boxes. That only leaves you, who like so many other alleged stalkers in the news these days: (1)Is all so happy to be the first person to volunteer information nobody else is remotely aware of, and (2)Turns out to be guilty as all get out. -- John Gohde 19:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If the template has been deleted, then all references to it have been deleted from the history of everyone who edited it. --Carnildo 06:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Snowspinner did not delete the template "00:39, 22 Mar 2005 Neutrality deleted Template:CAMInfobox (Per TfD, 4-2 vote.)" Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Closing comments and signature

The above presented evidence is a work in progress. I will covert to diff, etc., etc. at a later date upon the arbitration request being offically accepted by the arbitrators. -- John Gohde 19:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quoting User:172: "The rules are shaping a culture on Wikipedia utterly obsessed with process, but incognizant of product." [246] I brought this case against Snowspinner. Since the comments of the arbitrators indicate that the AC might turn this into a farce, or witch hunt against one of the many victims of Snowspinner, I am not going to waste anymore of my time developing this evidence until the case is officially accepted and there is acknowledgement that the AC is going to take seriously the concerns of the community against the tactics of Snowspinner. Most of the community in Wikipedia, know what a bunch of megalomaniacal dictators, who have absolutely no personal life, are. I will absolutely refuse to participate in any kind of a farce. I am not going to be a victim of Snowspinner, a second time around. -- John Gohde 20:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because Snowspinner's megalomaniacal presentation of evidence was so megalomaniacal, an arbitrator might actually notice it. So, I decided to spend some time replying to his funny presentation. The abuse of sysop privileges section was a mess, so I decided to do a better job of structuring it for historical purposes. Since I still do not see any indication that my request for arbitration is going to be taken seriously, developing my evidence further would only be a colossal waste of time in a bottomless pit of more and more editing. My presentation of my side should be good enough for any reasonable person. Since I have not made any major edits, nor will I in the future (i.e., not until the AC rules against Snowspinner), and since I have not interacted with anyone outside of Snowspinner beyond a few minor talk pages, I don't expect my request to be ruled on any time soon. The attachment of my signature to this comment certifies that I have completed my presentation of evidence. -- John Gohde 19:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Thryduulf

Personal attacks

• 27 March 2005
  • 22:35: John Gohde makes a personal attack against Snowspinner at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner. [247]

Blocks

• 21:44, 13 Feb 2005
  • RickK blocked "User:John Gohde" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violating the 3RR on Alternative medicine)
• 01:46, 6 Apr 2005
  • Silsor blocked "User:John Gohde" with an expiry time of 30 minutes (3RR on Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes)
• 03:16, 7 Apr 2005
  • Blankfaze blocked "User:John Gohde" with an expiry time of 24 hours (blocked for 30min for violating 3RR, came back and reverted a 5th time)
• 03:59, 7 Apr 2005
  • Snowspinner unblocked User:John Gohde (Should only be blocked for 23:30, as he has served half an hour already for some of these reverts.)
• 03:59, 7 Apr 2005
  • Snowspinner blocked "User:John Gohde" with an expiry time of 23 hours (Clarifying block to be more fair at 23 hours)
• 23:39, 19 Apr 2005
  • Fennec blocked "User:John Gohde" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit summaries on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes stating 'o Fuck yourself, Snowspinner. Go to hell, Snowspinner!')
    • (this is the personal attack referred to by MykReeve in his section below)

all of the above taken from the block log [248]. Thryduulf 08:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Netoholic

April 2004

• Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes - Viewing the recent history shows an edit war in progress. Both Snowspinner and John are misusing edit summaries by, in effect, holding a conversation. While both parties seem equally participating in the war, one should note that Snowspinner is an administrator and has petitiioned for sanctions against other editors for edit warring.
  • From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - "Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users."
  • Snowspinner was the initial creator of this page ([249]) and has reverted the page often in the intervening months (examples - [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255]). This may be a case of Snowspinner asserting too much ownership over this page, failing to assume good faith on the part of the other contributors.

Since February 2005

(This section current as of 21:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC).)

John Gohde returned to editing Wikipedia articles on Jan 30th.

Since that day, Snowspinner has made just 297 edits to articles. 108 of those have been to articles relating to alternative medicine, almost all which were reverts of John Gohde. 43 of these reverts were done using the "rollback" admin tool, which is specifically meant to be used only for dealing with vandalism.

The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and all users should focus on that goal. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Evidence submitted by MykReeve

John Gohde continues to be dismissive of the contributions of other editors, and does not assume good faith.

00:00, 14 Apr 2005 With this edit, [256], on Talk:Alternative medicine, he dismisses the points made on that page by Axl, because "unless, you are an editor that has recently edited alternative medicine, your comments don't mean anything to me".

18:23, 16 Apr 2005 With this edit, [257], on Talk:Alternative medicine, he is dismissive of the contributions of Leifern, stating that he would have had better things to do with his time.

13:38, 17 Apr 2005 With this edit to his user page, [258], he labels a contribution to Alternative medicine by Jon the Geek as "actively trying to destroy the work of other people", implying that Jon the Geek has "nothing better to do than crap on articles".

It seems that no-one can edit or even comment on Alternative medicine at present, without their contributions being dismissed, reverted or insulted by John Gohde. Between 13 April and this post, Axl, Leifern and Jon the Geek are the only users to have contributed to either Alternative medicine or Talk:Alternative medicine other than John Gohde. - MykReeve 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

15:18, 17 Apr 2005 States on this page in this edit, [259], that I am "confused about the value of time versus expertise, or how to edit articles for that matter" for quoting evidence that he has been insulting toward and dismissive of other users, and for providing evidence that he has not assumed good faith on the part of other users. He also repeats that he believes that Jon the Geek's contribution to Alternative medicine ([260]) constituted an example of "crapping on articles" (For clarity, my problem with this is not the use of the word "crapping", but with this attribution of what should be assumed to be a good faith edit). - MykReeve 16:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

16:29, 17 Apr 2005 States on this page in this edit, [261] that I am "exercising bad faith". - MykReeve 16:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

11:41, 18 Apr 2005 States in an edit summary a revert to my edit on Alternative medicine, [262], that I am creating "crap that tears down rather than builds up this article", by replacing the word always with generally. The word always should never be applied to the findings of a scientific study, and such confidence is certainly not explicit in the paper being cited. - MykReeve 12:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12:38, 18 Apr 2005 States on this page in this edit, [263]. that I am "crying" over my request that articles accurately reflect scientific evidence as presented. Even if "15 more research studies" were cited, my point would be equally valid, as described in Talk:Alternative medicine (see post [264]). (For clarity, also note that I am contending that the article should state "generally", not "always", unlike the assertion John Gohde makes in this edit difference.) - MykReeve 12:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

18:11, 19 Apr 2005 With this edit, [265], to Talk:Alternative medicine, he writes "Go waste somebody else's time" in response to Edwardian's comments ([266]) on the article. - MykReeve (T) (C) 18:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

23:17, 19 Apr 2005 In an edit to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes, ([267]), he writes the edit summary "I absolutely give up trying to work with a bunch of assholes! Go Fuck yourself, Snowspinner. Go to hell, Snowspinner!" - MykReeve (T) (C) 23:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)